Christian Bale as Batman and Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in BATMAN BEGINS (2005).
© Warner Bros. Pictures

Related Links

0

Comicscape - June 29, 2005

Tyler Bradway writes, "I've seen BATMAN BEGINS twice now and enjoyed it much more the second time. I agree that the film is brilliant and the most true to the atmosphere and vision in the comics; however, I really appreciated the first two Burton films for creating and embracing the weirdness and grotesquery of Batman's world. While that resulted in way too much emphasis on the villains, it gave the films a sense of imagination and vision freed from 'reality.' Certainly Nolan is making a different film, one grounded very much in a more believable, gritty realism, and it is very well-executed. But part of me missed the absurdity of the Joker's massive gun, the impossibly huge Gotham cathedral, and yes, even the Penguin's duck. I didn't care HOW these things could happen, and was willing to suspend my disbelief. Accepting Begins as an origin story, I think the film HAD to explain where Batman got his cape and car, etc., but at some point I didn't care. I was interested in his psychological development, which my favorite of the comics or graphic novels incorporated, but got bored with some of the exposition about how Batman could really exist. This made Lucius Fox into a James Bond Q type and deconstructed some of the myth, mystery and wonder of Batman's world. I think it makes the film more accessible to a larger audience, one less familiar with the comics, but it initially left me yearning for the atmosphere, sardonic humor, and dark vision of Burton's films. It was definitely an adjustment.

Many readers complained that the detailed deconstruction of Batman's origin robbed him of his mythic quality. I admit, it lends an air of mystery to Batman when we see him with the costume and the car sans explanation, but Christopher Nolan's and David Goyer's mandate was to create a "real world" Batman. Viewers must judge for whether that's appropriate for the character. I also noticed the parallel between Lucius Fox and James Bond's Q, but failed to mention it last week.

"Also, I appreciate Bale's Batman, but I really liked Keaton's aloofness as Wayne and stoicism as Batman. I think Batman needs to be angry, and Bale had that he's positively mean when he's dealing with Flass. But then in some moments it seemed inconsistent, especially with odd moments like that damn 'Nice coat' comment. Again, just a different interpretation, but equally good, despite the gamut of Burton bashing that has been taking place recently."

Thanks for writing Tyler. I think I made my feelings about the "Nice coat" comment clear enough last week, so I won't brutalize the comic relief any further than I already have. However, the Burton bashing perplexes me. I enjoyed BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS, and I see no reason for the resuscitated backlash. I understand some readers felt the films weren't faithful enough to the comics. I also realize that BATMAN's story is fairly thin and it works better as an exercise in atmosphere and visual allusion (I'm setting myself up with that comment). However, neither of the Burton films is "bash-worthy."

David Thurlow writes, "You mention the fight scenes in your review, remarking that they are tough to see, shot too close, and cut too quickly. Ain't It Cool News had the same problem. But look at it this way...because it's how I look at it and therefore correct...they aren't fight scenes. They are 'monster in the darkness attacks scenes.' Batman in this film is all about fear and so the violence is shot like it is in a movie like ALIEN. If you got to see the punches and kicks and dodges you could appreciate Batman as a MATRIX-style martial arts hero but...well you know how he does it then. Instead we get the impression of violence and speed and a seemingly impossible amount of destruction. It makes Batman seem a bit supernatural and since we know he isn't it adds a bit to his 'freakin' nuts' quotient."

David, just because you can explain the obscured and Mtv-style fights, doesn't mean they work well. Often, writers and directors field criticism with "We meant it that way!" Intentional or not, the fights were difficult to follow and un-engaging. I read a review or a letter that described the fight scenes as someone quickly waving a black cape back and forth in front of the camera. That's hilariously accurate, as the fight scenes looked like a fleeting black blur with goons yelling in the background. I stand by my position on the fight scenes. If they were meant to give Batman a supernatural, otherworldly quality, they failed. However, the build-ups to the fights did just that with henchman disappearing and being strung up in a flash. Those were "monster in the darkness attack scenes" and they were done well.

Jeremy Turner writes, "I didn't really hate BATMAN BEGINS, but thinking back on the movie, I was less then impressed. Yeah the first half was interesting, and to see a young Batman discover how to become the Batman we all know and love is great, but the problems are just too many. I found the best part of the movie to be Bruce Wayne fighting Ra's Al Ghul right before Bruce decided that he didn't want to kill. That was interesting, and showed great hope for the rest of the movie. But that's where it starts to go downhill. Why is Bruce Wayne allowed to fight the fake Ra Ghul and the rest of the Shadow league is nowhere to be found?

I think getting out of the burning building was more of a priority than stopping Bruce Wayne.

"Then he gets back to Gotham and the movie starts to get even worst. I hear all these reviews about how the fighting was filmed like BOURNE SUPREMACY. Ok, first thing, this is not the BOURNE SUPREMACY. The fighting scenes were terrible; it was almost like I didn't care. It's not the same thing when Bourne is fighting in the light, you can actually tell what's going on. When Batman is fighting, in the dark, against guys that have black on, it looks terrible. What was going on? It looked like somebody took a cape and started flapping it in front of the camera and making hitting noises. I thought the HBO special had better action.

So, you were the one that said that. I've been repeating that to my friends all week and everyone got a good laugh. Thanks.

"Then the 'wonderful' Batmobile sequence. Um, yeah......what was that? Don't get me wrong, the Batmobile was a great car; I thought it was really cool, but heaven forbid Batman has to fire a rocket quickly. The Batmobile chase in BATMAN RETURNS was much better. Everyone lauded this as a great action sequence, but basically it was Batman, driving badly, endangering civilians, wrecking property. This is supposed to be the savior of Gotham, yeah, why don't you cause a little more property damage while you're at it. In fact, come to think of it, the Batmobile driving sideward and going up the side of a building in BATMAN FOREVER was even better then that.

All right, I've got to take a stand. I loved the Batmobile chase. In reality, if that many cops were in pursuit, he would've floored it and run over everything in his way. I think Alfred's scolding afterwards emphasized Bruce's recklessness and clarified that his alter-ego was affecting his judgment. I believe Nolan and Goyer intended for the chase to be reckless and destructive to show how far Bruce had gone. Batman just isn't as noble as you would have him be. I think THE OMAC PROJECT has made it quite clear Batman's kind of a prick.

"Then the ending, let's not even get into the actual stupidity of evaporating the city's water supply, and let's just talk about, how many times is Batman going to drop off of ledges, windows, ect and then get up like everything is ok. And they never really say rather the guy at Wayne was responsible for the water thing-a-migiy getting stolen or not. It's all explained away with 'I just got fired for asking too many questions.' And yeah.......The Wayne Manor fire was bad CG. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate the movie. I thought it was better then Batman III and IV. But best Batman ever, best superhero film ever.......yeah right. I liked the comedy, I liked Wayne trying to keep up his Rich Boy image, and I loved Fox. The movie wasn't terrible, it just wasn't good. What makes it even more annoying, is the fact that everyone is talking about how great it is, I feel like I saw a different movie or something. At least I know now though, that I'm not alone in my thinking it wasn't the 'Movie of the Year.'"

I thought the ledge-jumping and exaggerated acrobatics emphasized Batman's unreal abilities, though I can see why this might contradict the film's "real world" approach. I realize my explanation may not satisfy your objection, as David Thurlow's assertion about the fight scenes failed to satisfy mine (but that's why we argue because we don't agree!). I don't think the film insinuated that Lucius Fox had anything to do with the microwave gun thing disappearing. That would've been explored further, because it would've mean that Fox was really working for the League of Shadows (or something similarly evil).

Jen Gray writes, "I think you hit on all of the few flaws this film had quite nicely. As I watched the Gordon/Tumbler scene it struck me as odd, as I felt his bewildered reactions to the Tumbler were a bit off-kilter for Gordon's character. Sure, if I were in an automated attack vehicle I'd be somewhat ruffled as well, but it was comically overdone and the one reason why I couldn't wholly praise Gary Oldman's performance as Gordon. Otherwise, I think he did a fine job.

Holy crap! A woman reads my column! My God, I can barely get my wife to read it, let alone any other members of the fairer sex. I think I need a cigarette now. Anyway, Jen, I though Gary Oldman acted wonderfully, but the Tumbler scene felt unnecessary. Gordon exuded a restrained, world-weary air for most of BATMAN BEGINS, which made the Tumbler bit all the more abrupt. It reminded me of Wesley Snipes saying "Cootchie coo" in BLADE: TRINITY completely out of place and inappropriate for the character.

"One element that I thought was a bit lacking was the score. Granted I had a bias before viewing the film, as I knew the score would never be as spectacular as Danny Elfman's for the Tim Burton films, but I was not impressed in any way. There was not a recurring or underlying theme that I could pick up on, which is unusual for Zimmer's work, and titling all the individual tracks on the CD in stylized Latin names makes things even more ambiguous. Perhaps when I see the film again I will pay more attention to the score, but on the first viewing it fell short of being noteworthy.

Danny Elfman set a high standard in BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS and virtually ruined it for anyone else that followed him. BATMAN BEGINS sported an atmospheric, albeit unmemorable score. Heroes need a theme.

"In closing, I have a question for you: do you think it would be possible to maintain the wonderfully dark tone BATMAN BEGINS has established in future films if the characters of Robin or Batgirl were introduced? Dick Grayson has the potential to be cocky and brooding as an older teen, but it seems to me that despite Barbara Gordon's tough edge, her naiveté as Batgirl could harm the overall gravity of a future film. In any case, it would depend on good casting and an actor and actress who respect their roles enough to do a serious and true portrayal of their characters. Your thoughts?"

You play a dangerous game asking me that. I don't think a traditional portrayal of Barbara Gordon would work. If Robin were portrayed a la Jason Todd, it could work. The tension of Batman as a surrogate father might be interesting. I'd probably rewrite Barbara Gordon as the runaway bastard child of an affair Jim Gordon had years ago. She'd be a Goth girl, ex-prostitute with scars on her wrists. I'd probably have Robin meet her and be the first person that's been nice to her in a while. Then he'd take her to the Batcave to impress her, and Bruce would catch them and say she has to join them because she's seen too much. Yeah, I'm sick. Asking me questions like that is like asking Edward Gorey to design a daycare center.

Red Machine's Bryan Mero writes, "Katie Holmes - ok, not my first choice for a love interest, but she did grow on me as the film progressed. Wooden lines aren't always the fault of the actor. It's one thing to write the lines and a totally different thing to say them on screen. I'm not saying that Katie Holmes is an Oscar caliber actress, far from it, but give the girl a break. She did the best she could with what she had.

Bryan, you should know by now that I'm ruthless and no one is safe. Brutal honesty defines me, and that doesn't afford me the luxury of giving breaks. All right, Al Brown gets breaks, but that's just because he's "special." Seriously, though, I don't want her to die under the tires of a Mack truck. But, I thought the film would've been better served by chucking the love story and changing Rachel Dawes to Harvey Dent.

"Comic Relief - with such a dark movie, a spare amount of comic relief does come in handy. When it is done well it only enhances the drama of the story. I wouldn't dare edit out Alfred's promise to let Bruce 'borrow the Rolls' after Alfred picks him up in the Wayne private jet. Now, this can go too far, and having the same homeless guy, who happens to be at Batman's first caper, still wearing Bruce's jacket, having Bruce remember the homeless man and seeing his old coat is quite the stretch...I'd probably have better chances at winning to the Lotto. I guess my main point is that this portrayal sought to show how realistic it could be for a man to turn into a vigilante...with the will and the means to do so.

Alfred's one-liners didn't bother me, because it was entirely in keeping with his character. Well-placed, character-appropriate humor works fine. I've been in plenty of abysmal situations where people still cracked jokes. It's stuff like the "Nice coat" and "Nice ride" bit that bothered me (what can I say, I don't like "nice" things).

"Fight Scenes - The fight scenes were hard to watch due to the quick editing but it played more as a true street fight than your typical superhero fight sequence. And we do have to remember that with Bruce's training, he should be moving faster than what most people could react to and the quick editing brings that through. Although not perfect, it stays true to the storyline, even if it might be hard to watch."

You can still film a quick, brutal fight with the camera a few feet away from the actors. Viewers want to watch the fight, not experience it. I understand Christopher Nolan's intentions, but it just didn't work for me. Thanks for writing, Bryan.

Wes writes, "I guess if I knew nothing of Batman I'd be in love with this movie. One thing that frustrates me about comic book films is the filmmakers need to hold the audiences hand when it comes to the back stories.

Wes, it's probably not worth repeating, but studios create movies everyone can watch, not just comic fans. That means origins have to be explained and some subplots and character traits that could be developed over several issues will be cut for easier understanding.

"Once we do hit Gotham City I find it disturbing that the guy in charge of Arkum Asylum is all of what...fifteen?

Dude, it's Cillian Murphy! Didn't you see 28 DAYS LATER? Seriously, WTF?

"And Katie Holmes is a D.A.? This is as good as Denise Richards being a rocket scientist (or whatever she was) in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. For a film trying to ground itself in reality this was a rather ridiculous misstep.

That silence you hear is the sound of me not arguing with you. Denise Richards should stick to hot threesome scenes like in WILD THINGS.

"And this movie is supposedly redefining the franchise. But it sure takes liberty with stealing from its predecessors. The 'I'm Batman.' line was a lame nod and done with much more success in the first Burton film. Waiting out the hour until Bale does put on the cape and cowl doesn't even pay off. Bale looks uncomfortable in the suit. It looks as if it is ill fitting and makes his face look chubby.

I liked the awkwardness he portrayed in the suit. It reminded the viewer that no matter how many criminals he strings up or how many bats he can summon, he's still just a man.

"His Batman voice is horrific as well. I cringed at ever line he uttered and the poor, over the top way he delivers them. Maybe all of this was intentional. Maybe Nolan wanted the costume to be imperfect. Maybe he wanted Bruce to do a poor job as Batman because he's fresh at it.

The voice was a bit much, but as I said earlier, I thought the imperfection and awkwardness served the film's realism well.

"And if you've ever seen a drawing of Ra's Al Ghul the surprise at the end won't be that big of a surprise. The story was convoluted and had many unnecessary twists. This time around it was even more complicated than The Jokers mixture of products to inflict his virus in BATMAN. He just gave up and sprayed everyone with gas during a parade. Why didn't they do that here? Because the villain's evil plot in this is just overly elaborate and time consuming. And after all the time spent getting to the end point you just want to get it over with. When did Batman start flying everywhere? I know that another film superhero swings most everywhere, but I'm sorry, Batman uses ropes. He has a car, but ropes do come into play every now and again with him. And the bats...'back up'. Give me a break. One thing I always hated about the other films was the amount of people that knew who Batman was also. Being a fresh start doesn't seem to be improving on this for Bruce though. The final conversation between Bruce and Rachel was clichéd as well. It was flipped, but done and heard many times. Hell, it's becoming the norm for comic films. Overall I felt that Batman Begins utilizes very common comic to film elements and wraps it in a better package. Even the idea of placing it in a more realistic environment, Spider-Man and the pathetic new Punisher film did this already. Also I've seen our hero, including Batman, standing on buildings many times. So these shots are not impressive, just time consuming. I was annoyed that Wayne Enterprises just happened to have everything that Bruce would need to be The Batman as well. But I was in no way impressed with the Batmobile. The intentions were there and I am looking forward to the next one. I'm just fed up with having to wait for general audiences to catch up. I'm sure the upcoming FANTASTIC FOUR will be the same. It's too bad that I'm already familiar with the source material."

Goddamn, I asked for criticism, not slaughter. And the "back-up bats" ruled. Don't knock them. I've got some of my own and they come in handy when I want out of work early. Anyway, I have qualms with BATMAN BEGINS, but you make it sound like a cultural atrocity on par with TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. I didn't find the Ra's Al Ghul twist nearly as obvious as you did. It didn't really dawn on me that Neeson looked similar to his comic book counterpart until he revealed it. But, the League of Shadows's scheme to bring down Gotham played convolutely. On that note, Randal writes:

"The 'realism' factor of Batman is offset by the fact that a league of ninjas somewhere near Bhutan have targeted, of all places in the world for destruction, Gotham City. Funny how they tried to destroy it with poverty 20 years ago, and then decided to wait all this time before shipping in their bunnies and teddies. I half expect Al Ghul to admit that he had Joe Chill kill the Waynes, because they stood up to his 'Weapon of Mass Poverty.' Have any of the league members ever thought about, oh, I don't know... conventional wisdom? Such as obliterating Gotham off the face of the earth with a tactical nuke? Speaking of bunnies and teddies, the whole destroy-the-city plot was ridiculous. I mean, wouldn't it have been more realistic and cooler if the entire League of Shadows just started planting powder kegs in the sewers or something... undermine the foundations of the financial district or something. On the list of 'How to Kill a City,' shipping bunnies and teddies full of drugs, dumping them into the water supply, blowing up the water mains, evaporating said water supply with a stolen microwave, and then watching as the "afraid" Gothamites suddenly turn into blood-thirsty zombies would be relatively LOW on the list. Who designed these schemes anyway, Monty Python?"

I can't mount a convincing argument against this I admit that it sounds pretty ridiculous when you scrutinize it. Therefore, I throw out the wildcard it's a comic book adaptation and you can expect things like that. I hate to use that argument because it's such a catch-all, but certain realisms fly out the window in a superhero film even one ostensibly grounded in a more authentic reality. However, I acknowledge that the whole scheme's a bit of a stretch.

And finally, Phil Kent writes, "One thing that I thought the film did exceptionally well was give real depth to Gotham City. The film went beyond the simply Gothic mood of the Burton films, because it also provided a sense of the size, the history and the complexity of the social and criminal problems that Gotham has to deal with, highlighting the need for a hero like Batman.

I welcomed the change from a city terrorized by overly-inventive super-villains to one with drug problems, homelessness, civic corruption, and mob influence. I'm sure Nolan and Goyer intended that and it worked well.

"Aside from the problems you highlighted, which I agree with, another one that bothered me was the (perhaps deliberate) omission of Batman's intelligence. Yes Batman/Bruce Wayne is a physical specimen who's reached the peak of human fitness with highly trained combat skills. Batman is also, however, the world's greatest detective and although the movie represents his initiation to this role, I never felt that Batman or Bruce Wayne demonstrated any real intelligence. There was the indication (at the end of the film) that Bruce Wayne may have some business savvy, and I acknowledge that the Bruce Wayne personae is that of a spoilt rich kid and not a genius, but Batman's strength is his mind, and I didn't feel that was being characterized in the film."

You know, that hadn't occurred to me until you mentioned it. The film really deemphasized Batman's skill as a detective and instead played him as a cut-and-dry vigilante, albeit one with enough gadgets, mystique, and instability to distinguish him from "whatever-man." I'd like to see that aspect of Batman played up a bit in the sequel. Anyway, that's all the mail I can fit this week. E-mail me and let me know if you want to see the rest or if you want something different. And now, I have the dubious honor of presenting this week's listings, now with more Al Brown all the way back from his "vacation" in Greece. Enjoy!

Al: Jeez, I flee the country for a week and Kurt takes the opportunity to beat me up while I can't even defend myself. He's a bad person, folks. And he'll pay for it in the afterlife.
Kurt: Believe me, when I finally walk through Hell's gates, five minutes will pass and Satan's brutalized carcass will lay in a crumpled heap next to his I mean my new throne. MUHAHAHAHA!

Al: Not a single person wrote to tell me that they had demanded the return of the New Warriors. I hereby call bull***t on Marvel's claim that the New Warriors returned "because you demanded it", and I also call preemptive bull***t on any and all future claims to the same unless they're referring to the return of the Micronauts.

Kurt: Or Morbius, the Living Vampire. Don't forget Morbius. I'd also like to announce that I fked up last week. Astute reader Lance Eaton pointed out that Neil Gaiman wrote NEVERWHERE as a television miniseries before the novel, though the latter was written during the filming of the former. Thanks, Lance.

DARK HORSE

BILLY THE KIDS OLD TIME ODDITIES #3 (OF 4) $2.99
Al: A whole book about Kurt's face! Wow, that was lame. Sheesh.
Kurt: You just had to land that first punch, didn't you? And look what happened?

MEGATOKYO VOL 3 TP $9.95

TRIGUN VOL 1 TP $14.95

DC COMICS

ALBION #1 (OF 6) $2.99
Al: "Plotted by Alan Moore" sounds very suspicious to me, but I'll give this a shot anyway. It sounds like his kind of alley, anyway: "a collection of paragons, monsters, and clowns that vanished a quarter century ago".
Kurt: He outlined the story and his daughter, Leah Moore, and John Reppion actually wrote the script. Nope, no joke here. Just wanted to clarify things.

AUTHORITY LOBO SPRING BREAK MASSACRE (MR) $4.99
Al: What the hell is going on here? Didn't Hack/Slash already do this with the more-cleverly-titled "Girls Gone Dead"?
Kurt: My guess is that this book is in the fine tradition of the LOBO PARAMILITARY CHRISTMAS SPECIAL, in which the main man kills Santa Claus.

BATGIRL #65 $2.50

BATMAN ALLIES SECRET FILES 2005 $4.99

BATMAN SUPERMAN WONDER WOMAN TRINITY TP $17.99
Al: Holy crap! Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman AND Carrie-Anne Moss! What a team-up!
Kurt: It's the crossover no one saw coming. So, Neo versus Superman? Come on, you know you want to speculate.

CARTOON NETWORK BLOCK PARTY #10 $2.25

CITY OF TOMORROW #3 (OF 6) (MR) $2.99

COMPLETE INDIGO PRIME TP (MR) $19.99

ELFQUEST THE GRAND QUEST VOL 9 TP $9.99
I don't have anything clever to say about ELFQUEST. I actually like it and it's part of my childhood.

FLASH #223 $2.50

HELLBLAZER #209 (MR) $2.75
John Constantine versus the half-ass, evil Constantine that lives in hell no, not Keanu.

JLA CLASSIFIED #9 $2.99

LOSERS #25 (MR) $2.99
All kinds of feces hit all kinds of fans. This series rocks.

LUCIFER VOL 8 THE WOLF BENEATH THE TREE TP (MR) $14.99

OMAC PROJECT #2 SECOND PTG $2.50

OMAC PROJECT #3 (OF 6) $2.50
Far and away the best of the COUNTDOWN miniseries. Greg Rucka you rock.

PLANETARY #23 $2.99
By now, I've completely forgotten what happened in the preceding 22 issues. Oh well.

SEVEN SOLDIERS SHINING KNIGHT #3 (OF 4) $2.99

SOLO #5 $4.99
Al: Darwyn Cooke takes over with (among other things) a story about "a geek's growing passion for his vacuum cleaner". Is Kurt getting royalties on the story of his life?
Kurt: I thought you said you wouldn't tell anyone about your pet name, V.C. Now everyone knows.

SUPERMAN INFINITE CITY HC $24.99

TRANSGENESIS 2025 VOL 1 ANCESTOR PROGRAM TP (MR) $17.99

IMAGE

AVIGON GODS & DEMONS GN (MR) $19.95

BLACKLIGHT #1 $2.99
Scott Wherle and Jim Valentino with a series about a lady who turns blue and flies. Image's preview did not blow me away.

GIRLS NEW PRTG #1 (MR) (PP #675) $2.95
Al: Okay, who read this? I did. I'm not sure how I felt about it. I loved Ultra, but this kinda had its creepy moments. I'll stick with it though. Hot naked girls, so that's a plus. Kurt can finally learn what breasts look like.
Kurt: Dude, if you look at my browser history, you'll see that I'm quite aware of what breasts look like especially the oversized ones attached to Rubenesque German women. Just sayin'.

PACT #3 (OF 4) $2.95

SMALL GODS SPECIAL #1 $2.95
Kurt: Al calls it "the small god," and boy, is it small. The fker just keeps trying to show it to me, too.

SPAWN #147 (RES) $2.50

WITCHBLADE #86 $2.99

MARVEL

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #521 $2.50

ARANA HEART OF THE SPIDER #5 $2.99

CAPTAIN AMERICA LTD ED VARIANT #6 $2.99

FANTASTIC FOUR #528 $2.99
The start of JMS' run on FF has been pretty good, although I still miss the mighty Waid. I like the idea that the Thing is the richest guy in the group, though.

FANTASTIC FOUR 1234 TP $9.99

HOUSE OF M COIPEL GATEFOLD VARIANT #1 (OF 8) (PP #673) $2.99
Kurt: I'm going to pitch a book to Joe Q. called HOUSE OF AL. The cover will be a cardboard refrigerator box in an alley with a sign that says "Small children welcome. 'Candy' inside."

LAST HERO STANDING #5 (OF 5) $2.99

MACHINE TEEN #2 (OF 5) $2.99

MARVEL HEROES FLIP MAGAZINE #1 $3.99

MARVEL MASTERWORKS CAPTAIN AMERICA VOL 2 HC VAR ED $54.99

MARVEL MASTERWORKS CAPTAIN AMERICA VOL 2 NEW ED HC $49.99

MARVEL MILESTONES DR DOOM SUB-MARINER & RED SKULL $3.99
Did the fans demand this?

MARVEL SELECT FLIP MAGAZINE #1 $3.99

NEW X-MEN HELLIONS #2 (OF 4) $2.99
I made fun of this when it first came out, but it turns out that this series is way better than it has any right to be.

OFFICIAL HANDBOOK MARVEL UNIVERSE FANTASTIC FOUR 2005 $3.99

RUNAWAYS #5 $2.99
Just like most of Al's girlfriends.

SPIDER MAN HUMAN TORCH #5 (OF 5) $2.99

X-MEN #172 $2.50

X-MEN KITTY PRYDE SHADOW & FLAME #1 (OF 5) $2.99
Al: Hooray! Another pointless miniseries by Akira Yoshida, the king of pointless miniseries...es. Miniserieses?
Kurt: The plural form is just "miniseries," kind of like "deer." Yeah, grammar's tough when you drop out of the fourth grade to pursue a life of deviance, Al.

YOUNG AVENGERS #5 $2.99
Al: The team's first fatality! I'll believe it when I read it.
Kurt: Yeah, we're already building future storylines wherein dead characters come back after being not dead (as it turns out), but away fighting space monkeys in dimension X all these years!

Questions? Comments? Let us know what you think at comicscape@cinescape.com.